JAGDISH PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED AND SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) AND ANOTHER Vs. 11TH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's suit for ejectment of respondent-tenants was decreed by Trial Court allowing recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits as well as eviction of tenants but the said decree dated 13.5.1996 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 49 of 1986 has been reversed partly by Revisional Court while partly allowing S.C.C. Revision No. 147 of 1996 vide judgment dated 24.3.1999 and setting aside decree of Trial Court to the extent it has passed order of ejectment of the tenants.

(2.) The Revisional Court found that there was no valid service of notice determining tenancy upon the tenant. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court has decided this issue merely on the ground that endorsement of "refusal" given by postal authority was not proved by the petitioner-landlord by producing the postman himself and this view taken by Revisional Court is not correct in view of Full Bench Judgment in Ganga Ram Vs. Phulwati AIR 1970 All. 446.

(3.) However, I find that the Court below has not proceeded only on this aspect but has held that endorsement of "refusal" from statement of petitioner-landlord is suspicious and doubtful inasmuch the petitioner alleged in his own statement as P.W. 1 that he accompanied the postman when he reached residence of Bhajan Lal, but could not explain as to in what circumstances he accompanied the postman to serve the letter upon the addressee. This conduct of petitioner was not only unusual but shows his nexus with the postman and that being so, the Revisional Court has rightly disbelieved the endorsement on the ground that it was managed by petitioner by inducing the postman to do so by meeting him personally and since this finding is based on statement of petitioner which is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner, I find no error in the order impugned in this writ petition. The Full Bench judgment in Ganga Ram (supra) in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, has no application hereat.